Feel Good? - Now Think

I didn't have 5 minutes to watch this video but I couldn't tear myself away. There's something to be said about a gritty, honest, feel good advertisement that has disturbingly good intentions and forces you to really contemplate an issue.

Post Secret


I think I first saw this technique in a more rudimentary form while watching "Adaptation"; it was a quick scene when a car reverses out of the driveway and you witness a startlingly disturbing and violent impact. The technique was later reused in a recent Volkswagon campaign.



Most recently we saw "Wind" which was elusively entertaining, intriguing and a bit unsettling to watch:



and now Post Secret. It's becoming more of an imperative that advertisements are entertaining, but there's a shift towards a theme that elicits an emotional response. It's a gritty, honest approach that doesn't seem contrived. This technique has incredible potential because it has the ability to get your message passed around; but it also enables the viewer to watch the message to the end and has a better chance of resonating with the audience.

In a DVR, OnDemand & internet world there has to be a reason to stay tuned into the increasingly obsolete 30 second spot, why not build off a trend that is gaining some momentum?

On All Fours

Why aren't we allowed to procreate with family members. I know, I know, that's gross, it's disgusting, shunned; but why? Well why would we condone behavior that creates devolved offspring?

Everyone alive today has FoxP2 - it is a genetic mutation that makes humans smart and, well human. Pidedality is one trait that is a product of our larger brains and increased intelligence. I recently watched a film on KQED called "Family that Walks on All Fours" that raises an intense scientific issue.



The episode is enlightening - the Turkish family is difficult to watch, they are like animals, they walk on all fours and stare into the camera like zombies - actually it kind of freaked me out!

The family, however, sparked an interesting question that is more of moral and societal question than a scientific one. Let me set up the issue this way. We don't breed with our family members because of the risk that society has deemed unacceptable. Same family breeding allows negative genetic mutations to become dominant, often resulting in retardation. The good of society, is a good enough reason not to allow this behavior. So then, what are the limits to acceptable breeding policy.

It seems taboo to discuss, but we all tote our IQ around with us and our society is made up of a variety of people ranging from, simply put, smart to dumb. We are trained to think that we are all smart in our unique way, but some have a few more pistons firing than others. A lack of intelligence isn't always as visually obvious as walking on all fours, but evolutionarily speaking some humans are not as advanced as others.

That being said, let's look at the Chinese governmental mandate called the "One Child Policy", and take a look at how it might be compared to social policy about inbreeding. Both policies dictate that citizens should not procreate in ways that are harmful to society. Watching "The Family Who Walks On All Fours" I started to wonder why social policy doesn't favor intelligent offspring over the offspring of parents who are less evolved. See the movie Idiocracy. Maybe it's too hard to draw a line without obvious visual deformities, or Is it because we don't have a good enough way of testing how smart or evolved certain individuals are? Why isn't there a test that evaluates our DNA, determines our biological intelligence and dictates whether we're permitted to have 1 kid ( below par) or 3 kids ( really smart), or maybe not any kids at all?

I think about mandates currently in place to enhance our society, how they will change and what we can do to encourage intelligence without becoming a bunch of Nazis.